Convergence & Conflict: Reflections on Global and Regional Human Rights Standards on Hate Speech
SSRN Electronic Journal
2021
- 1Citations
- 2,082Usage
- 3Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
Social Media and the Appearance of Corruption.(AEI Digital Platforms and American Life Project)
Social media platforms are private companies that give users a venue for speech, and the biggest platforms provide the largest audiences for that speech. They
Article Description
Hate speech is a hot topic globally, stubbornly persistent on online platforms just as those platforms, not to mention governments and international organizations, seek guidance from international human rights law in dealing with it. But what is hate speech? And how do key adjudicators – especially states, United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms, and regional human rights bodies – interpret the law governing freedom of expression and hate speech? This Article seeks to illuminate two countervailing and under-reported trends: on the one hand, a growing consensus among UN experts and treaty bodies concerning interpretations of “hate speech” prohibitions in international law; and on the other, a failure of several regional human rights systems to develop approaches to hate speech that are consistent with the UN’s universal standards. The Article begins by analyzing the UN’s approach to freedom of expression and hate speech and examining how, in the last decade, various UN expert bodies have converged on an approach to hate speech and freedom of expression. The Article next compares this global standard with key developments in the Inter-American, European, African, Arab, Islamic, and Southeast Asian human rights systems. This comparative analysis reveals that, while certain systems converge with the UN’s approach, others diverge, sometimes marginally, sometimes significantly. For example, the European Court of Human Rights frequently lessens or removes the burden on governments to show hate speech restrictions are properly imposed, allows for the imposition of hate speech restrictions for reasons not accepted at the global level, and does not assess whether restrictions on speech are the least intrusive means to achieving legitimate public interest objectives. After analyzing this landscape of regional norms in convergence and conflict with UN standards, the Article provides several key observations on this complex state of affairs. The Article concludes by urging human rights defenders throughout the world to be cognizant of the areas in which regional human rights systems conflict with UN standards and to tackle this trend through proposed strategies to protect universal minimum standards for freedom of expression.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know